Monday, April 19, 2010

Jawohl, mein Pope!

Oh sorry, the original line goes "Jawohl, mein Fuhrer", which, of course was a salutation given to the one and only Adolf Hitler, during the heights of Nazism. I just learnt that Prof. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are consulting lawyers in England whether the Pope can be arrested during his visit to the country later this year. The charge? Crimes against humanity, of course. To be more specific, the Catholic Church's covering up of the sex scandals involving priests and the rampant sexual abuses of young children that has scarred their lives forever, so in essence, allowing sex offenders to be guarded against the course of law.

So can the Pope be arrested? For one, the Vatican put out a lousy and feeble defense by saying that he's (Pope) a head of state (The Vatican) and so cannot be arrested during a state visit. Well, Prof. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens are contesting that claim as well, and don't believe that he is an actual head of state, and given a chance, would have him branded as a tin-pot dictator of a fiefdom filled with men dressed in fancy costumes.

So what's Papa Ratzi's fault in the whole sex scandal and the raping of the young children you may ask, especially since he certainly didn't commit any of those crimes (at least, none that we know of). True, but then, as the boss, you're responsible for your subordinates, the buck stops with him, so there's the question of moral responsibility involved here. But hang, trash moral responsibility, there's direct complicity in the cover-up of these sordid affairs, and in helping with the cover up (specific letters bearing his signature and seal asking for the priests to be let off), the old man is guilty of helping criminals who raped children to go scot free. Now that, dear reader, is a crime. Old man Adolf (yes, Hitler) never really pushed into a gas chamber or shot any Jew himself (again, none that we know of), although I'm sure he'd have loved to, but he gave the orders and was the boss and didn't prosecute any of the foot soldiers who committed the crimes, ergo, guilty as hell. I know the analogy isn't 100% accurate because in the Pope's case, he didn't order the priest to rape children, or have sex with women and father their children (in some cases, the foetuses were aborted - something the Church is actually vehemently opposed to - or the women were payed hush money to keep quiet in case they had the child). But since he was directly involved in the cover-up and in helping the accused get away without any punishment, he can be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal in avoiding criminal prosecution.

So for all the fans of the Pope reading this as well as those of you who may not be a fan but don't mind if the Pope continues in his merry ways, here's some food for thought: do we send out a signal to the world that if you have a title like priest or cardinal or Pope (in this case, I've mentioned only titles associated with the Church, but you get the point), then you can get away with raping children? I wonder if, as a species, we can show some collective testicular fortitude and say 'No' to the question asked above and go ahead and prosecute the man. I guess that's what happens when you have a former Nazi running your affairs! And on a side note, I wonder if the Pope or any of those priests who are guilty would like taking it up their ass when in prison. If the answer is 'no', they should have thought about it before sticking their penises into the rectums of young children.

Another post detailing the 'crimes' of the Vatican and the former Nazi Ratzinger can be read here, from the CBC News Network.. It's got a nice title: Sex, Crimes, and the Vatican. ROTFLMAO!!!

Below is a YouTube video of Hitchens explaining the deal.


Jil Jil Ramamani said...

It has been seen in International law that the serving head of a state has sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of other countries but not from international tribunals. This diplomatic immunity is extended to the Pope by virtue of heading the Holy See.

The Holy See, essentially the Roman Catholic Church (as distinct from the Vatican city; the former having been in existence much before the latter) in International law has come to be treated as the juridical equal of a state. Considering UK among other countries extend the same diplomatic relations to the Holy See as they do to other states, this is in sorts a reflection of the stance the UK will be forced to take regarding the Church itself - whether they want to isolate it as a religious organization or they are going to hang on to age-old tradition of recognizing it as a Government/State by itself.

Then comes the deal of having to establish that the erring bishops were agents of the State.

This has happened in the US before, it would be interesting to see now what happens in the UK.

(About the US Case -,2933,169909,00.html)

Jil Jil Ramamani said...

And this image seems apt for this post :)

Jil Jil Ramamani said...

Nothing about CWG Shetty saar?

Maria said...

Link to the pope's response

Karthik Shetty said...

@Maria: I don't know if the response is supposed to make me happy, or what. I didn't see any mention of punishing those guilty of the heinous crimes against the children. All it talks about is how sorry the Pope (big deal, that's the least he could do), and asking the Irish Church authorities to ask the lord for forgiveness after acknowledging the sins committed, but no where is there talk of punishing the guilty. And properly constituted tribunals? Where are the tribunals, what are the findings, who are the guilty and what is the punishment these tribunals have meted out? A lot of questions still need to be answered.
Provided by site.